Sorry, I disagree with your rather rigid definition of 'tribes' and 'clans'. Tribes are not a form of clans but are a collation of clans. That is, the clan is usually understood as a sub-group of a tribe in a larger population. And a tribe or clan isn't necessarily defined by blood membership. It can be 'perceived' kinship; i.e., in some tribes, membership can be by consensual admission of the group.
Tribes do not exist 'outside of/against states'. Tribalism, which is to say, societal organization by means of kinship networks is one mode of social organization and operated over the world in smaller populations. The state, which is a civic mode, and emerged to deal with very large populations and particularly, in industrial and market/trade economies, is another. The two don't normally share power; it's one mode or the other. In China, the state is nominally in power - and deals with state economic issues and foreign affairs. But China is still strongly in the grip of its old agricultural mode of life, based around kinship networks and obligations. In the 'old days', the giving of gifts would cement the familial interaction. This was always local. But when you had a state system introduced with bureaucrats and national rules that stood within a hierarchy over the local familial networks, with those faceless bureaucrats in power, then, the old way of interaction corrupted to what can only be understood as: bribes. As noted, in China - it is almost impossible to deal with the govt bureaucracy except within this system of bribes. The article had nothing to do with pragmatism. I'd consider Peirce's scientific method, as outlined in his Fixation of Belief, to be a good outline of pragmatism, and this 'do what it takes to get a result' in China (and in India and other third world countries) - has nothing to do with pragmatism. Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: U Pascal To: Søren Brier Cc: Stephen C. Rose ; Edwina Taborsky ; Jon Awbrey ; Phyllis Chiasson ; peirce-l@list iupui. edu Sent: Monday, June 09, 2014 1:42 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: NYTimes : From China, With Pragmatism I agree this article had a rather poor take on pragmatism but guanxi networks are not "pure tribalism." Clans are kinship groups, tied together by blood & marriage. Tribes are a form of clans not germane to Chinese social structure. Tribes exist outside of/against states. Chinese clans do not have an antagonistic relationship with the state. Clans have very little to do with guanxi networks and do not characterize the whole of Chinese social structure. The only way to get a surgeon to become part of your family is to marry him/her. Hongbao are not dowries. ---Ulysses On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Søren Brier <[email protected]> wrote: I support your interpretation too. Søren Fra: Stephen C. Rose [mailto:[email protected]] Sendt: 9. juni 2014 14:57 Til: Edwina Taborsky Cc: Jon Awbrey; Phyllis Chiasson; peirce-l@list iupui. edu Emne: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: NYTimes : From China, With Pragmatism Well done, Edwina. S @stephencrose On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 8:46 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: I think that it was a naive and ignorant article and as such, because it was written out of ignorance, not worthy of 'total despair'! I think that the author is unaware of the difference between a tribal and a civic society. The former, and China fits in here, operates within the network and ties of kinship obligations. The latter, which the West moved into centuries ago, operates, legally at least, by rejecting the privileges or lack of kinship bonds and focusing instead as per the Magna Carta and Declaration of Independence, on human equality. This has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with 'pragmatism'. It's pure tribalism; you claim the surgeon, for example, as a member of your clan by your financial tribute to his skill; his accepting the tribute shows that he accepts the patient into 'his tribe'. Both become members of the same family clan. Nothing, nothing, to do with pragmatism, which would be viewed, I think, as unethical because pragmatism shows no respect for 'the clan', for 'the family obligations'. Absolutely nothing to do with the notion of 'god' as the author tries to claim: "By contrast American ethics (and foreign policy) is still too religious in its perspective, and even our democratic traditions are asserted with dogmatic gusto. As it's been pointed out many times, someone who thinks he has God on his side is capable of almost anything." Then, another aspect is missing. The Chinese, for the most part, are still deeply superstitious and, in a way, quite nominalistic! The words you use are considered important in effecting the result; that's not pragmatism; that's superstition and suggests, if I may say, a lack of Thirdness!!!. The colours you use, the sounds, the location of a house or window....all have 'power' to make things happen. And another aspect - corruption. You don't get anything done in China without that red envelope. That's not merely in the hospitals - and in this communist socialist nation you pay for your medical care - but to get a bureaucratic result - a form, a registration, a visa, a...you must take the Boss Man out to dinner and hand over that red envelope. Corruption can't be redefined as pragmatism. Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jon Awbrey" <[email protected]> To: "Phyllis Chiasson" <[email protected]> Cc: "peirce-l@list iupui. edu" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2014 8:00 AM Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: NYTimes : From China, With Pragmatism Yes, thankfully few of them saved me from total despair. Jon http://inquiryintoinquiry.com On Jun 9, 2014, at 1:05 AM, Phyllis Chiasson <[email protected]> wrote: Did you read the comments following the piece? Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> wrote: good grief, what tripe ... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . ----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . ----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . -- Ulysses
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
